Woo Hoo, LHC is Working

[alexander]

you would see heat though, heat would be formed prior to the formation of the hole, thus heat energy would be transfered to the particles that will be colliding prior to the formation of the object, then the particles themselves will transfer the heat to the black hole that is formed.

 

Propose this basic timeline for the events. Mind you all of this is highly unlikely to happen, but suppose it does:

 

(definitions: 2 beams of particles where 1 particle is moving towards another particle. i will call any proton a "particle", a bunch of protons a "bunch" and the particle moving in the opposite direction scheduled to collide with the particle i am talking about, a "counter particle")

 

start off at 2 bunches particles zooming around the collider at 11,000 rps, and nearing the speed of light.

 

some of the superconducting magnets bend the path of the bunches to collide. all particles are set on a collision course, where they will all meet in one place at the same time.

 

protons get closer and closer to each other

eventually they get so close that the kinetic energy they carry, starts being counteracted by the repelling negative magnetic field of the opposing particle, and generates immense (for the particle) amount of heat that the particle continues carrying towards the counter particle.

 

all particles eventually get so close together that the force of gravity, and some of the still converting kinetic energy fuses the bunches into a superdense object and brings the kinetic energy to 0, momentarily forming a microsocopic supermassive object that perhaps increases its mass with the heat energy it gained during formation....

 

 

does that work for anyone?

[Little Bang]

Has anyone ever entertained the thought that the temperature at the center of a black hole might be approaching zero?

[7DSUSYstrings]

No, I'm just saying that two things need to touch in order to transfer energy. In classical thermodynamics heat can be from radiation, conduction or convection, and all require physical interaction.

 

So when an electron jumps its orbit in stimulation it touches another particle to lose its photon and recover its original energy level? Does that align with the exclusion principle (recently mentioned)?

[alexander]

Has anyone ever entertained the thought that the temperature at the center of a black hole might be approaching zero?

according to current black hole physics it absolutely does approach zero, it's just far from it...

 

also, zero what, i mean in some scale it is certainly already is zero or even less then zero...

[freeztar]

according to current black hole physics it absolutely does approach zero, it's just far from it...

 

also, zero what, i mean in some scale it is certainly already is zero or even less then zero...

 

Temperature is measured in Kelvins, so, 0K.

 

It makes sense that it would asmptotically approach zero, but I'm not sure if it would reach absolute zero. It certainly wouldn't go below that though assuming our notion of absolute zero means no movement is correct. Once something is stopped, you can't stop it more. :)

[Erasmus00]

The thing is, "heat" and "temperature" are concepts that only apply to large collections of particles, not individual particles! The question "what is the temperature of this room" makes sense, the question "what is the temperature of this atom" or "what is the temperature of this proton" does not.

 

For the energy of a black hole created at the LHC, we note that the most energy a black hole can have is the energy of the two protons that collided to create it. Two 7 TeV protons colliding will (at most) create a 14 TeV black hole. This black hole will be at rest, so all of its energy will be mass.

-Will

[alexander]

freezy, i was merely implying that in sci-speak you need to follow a quantity by units, even if they are implied by the topic.

 

It certainly wouldn't go below that

no, just like particles won't exceed the speed of light. But as i said, it depends on the scale, if the sentence read "if the temperature at the center of the black hole might be approaching zero K" i would agree, if it read "zero C" i would agree and my point would be correct.

 

Here's the thing, black holes can not exist if they have and thus don't emit any kind of thermal radiation. It was predicted by Jacob Bekenstein, according to quantum mechanics black holes have to have non-zero entropy, and thus must be emmiting some sort of radiation. It is now theorized that it emmits a sort of black body radiation, sometimes referred to as hawking radiation. According to Yakov Zeldovich and Alexander Starbinsky, a rotating black hole should create and emit particles. If such is the case, then heat radiation is emitted by the hole, tending it to approach zero (like anything cooling down).

 

The thing is, "heat" and "temperature" are concepts that only apply to large collections of particles, not individual particles!

I disagree:

"On the microscopic scale, temperature is defined as the average energy of microscopic motions of a single particle in the system per degree of freedom."(Temperature)

[Erasmus00]

"On the microscopic scale, temperature is defined as the average energy of microscopic motions of a single particle in the system per degree of freedom."(Temperature)

 

You need a large system for the average to make any kind of sense! Temperature is a statistical property of macroscopic systems.

-Will

[modest]

you would see heat though, heat would be formed prior to the formation of the hole, thus heat energy would be transfered to the particles that will be colliding prior to the formation of the object, then the particles themselves will transfer the heat to the black hole that is formed...

 

kinetic energy they carry, starts being counteracted by the repelling negative magnetic field of the opposing particle, and generates immense (for the particle) amount of heat that the particle continues carrying towards the counter particle...

 

some of the still converting kinetic energy fuses the bunches into a superdense object and brings the kinetic energy to 0, momentarily forming a microsocopic supermassive object that perhaps increases its mass with the heat energy it gained during formation....

 

does that work for anyone?

 

I don't agree with the way "heat" or "heat energy" is used here. Heat is just the transfer of energy from one thing to another - it is not a particular kind of energy. An object or a particle can't possess heat. I don't think these collisions will gain any extra oomph because of heat... I hope I'm not misunderstanding.

 

No, I'm just saying that two things need to touch in order to transfer energy. In classical thermodynamics heat can be from radiation, conduction or convection, and all require physical interaction.

So when an electron jumps its orbit in stimulation it touches another particle to lose its photon and recover its original energy level? Does that align with the exclusion principle (recently mentioned)?

 

A black hole can absorb the photon and gain energy or absorb the atom and gain energy. If neither the photon nor the atom touch the black hole then there will be no exchange of energy.

 

For the energy of a black hole created at the LHC, we note that the most energy a black hole can have is the energy of the two protons that collided to create it. Two 7 TeV protons colliding will (at most) create a 14 TeV black hole. This black hole will be at rest, so all of its energy will be mass.

-Will

 

Would this be 2.5 x 10^-23 kg by e=mc^2 as in #46?

 

~modest

[alexander]

I don't agree with the way "heat" or "heat energy" is used here.

change in kinetic energy? heat is perhaps not the best way to describe it, but that is how this energy would be radiated.... i may be wrong in my assumptions, i mean i am no black hole physicist and i'd love to talk to one...

[7DSUSYstrings]

also, zero what, i mean in some scale it is certainly already is zero or even less then zero...

 

Now we're getting somewhere. One must consider that absolute zero in a moderately stable part of the universe such as ours is not the same as absolute zero within the vacuum existing outside the entire universe. Kelvin holds true for what we can detect. It may not hold true outside that range. For example, liquid helium as we know it on earth is close to what we call absolute zero, but a solidified helium ice isotope may exist at -10degK or even lower.

Remember: Nature abhors a void really means nature abhors an imbalanced condition.

 

Incidentally, Alexander, you are "talking" to a black hole physicist in the sense of my being a general astrophysicist. I simply have a different concept of how they are formed in nature and it is supported mathematically as well. We seem to lose the discussion when I enter the concept of gravitational field intersections. We only speculate that a black hole is spherical, or hyperbolic. The math works that way as well. Don't forget we initially were discussing the hypotrochoid symmetry of neutrino-graviton paths. These type of paths would cause intersections and eventually form a six dimensional + 1 geometry to a black hole. None of our accelerators are designed to process this type of characteristic, so a lot of "fudge factors" still come into play. Keywords to a fudge factor are "... I think."

 

 

Modest,

You didn't answer my question about laser/maser excitation.

 

Dr. C.

[Erasmus00]

Would this be 2.5 x 10^-23 kg by e=mc^2 as in #46?

 

Yes it would.

 

change in kinetic energy? heat is perhaps not the best way to describe it, but that is how this energy would be radiated.... i may be wrong in my assumptions, i mean i am no black hole physicist and i'd love to talk to one...

 

All the energy in particle accelerators is carried away from the collision point by particles. If a black hole is formed and decays by emitting hawking radiation this will show up as photons in detectors. If it doesn't decay until it leaves the detector, the only way to see it will be missing energy.

 

7DSUSYstrings, I can't make any kind of sense out of most things you have been writing. For instance, you've misused "null geodesic" several times. All massless particles (photons, gravitons) travel on null geodesics.

 

Kelvin holds true for what we can detect. It may not hold true outside that range. For example, liquid helium as we know it on earth is close to what we call absolute zero, but a solidified helium ice isotope may exist at -10degK or even lower.

 

This isn't right- 0 kelvin is defined by having an object in its lowest energy state. 0 kelvin on Earth is the same as 0 kelvin anywhere else. While negative temperatures can exist they are mostly unnatural lab situations, and in some sense negative temperatures are infinitely hot.

 

neutrino-graviton paths. These type of paths would cause intersections and eventually form a six dimensional + 1 geometry to a black hole. None of our accelerators are designed to process this type of characteristic, so a lot of "fudge factors" still come into play. Keywords to a fudge factor are "... I think."

 

This isn't making sense either, what is a neutrino-graviton? Neutrinos cannot be gravitons (neutrinos are observed to be spin 1/2, gravitons must be spin 2 or GR isn't right). Why would intersecting paths increase the number of dimensions? What is a +1 geometry? Why can't accelerators process "this characteristic?"

-Will

[Little Bang]

7D, where is this place you call outside the universe since the word means everything.

[Moontanman]

7D, where is this place you call outside the universe since the word means everything.

 

LB, surely you know about the place that is at a right angle to everything else? I store my gold bars there:naughty: Seriously, M-Brane theory does provide for a space out side what we think of as the universe. But you have to believe there is more than three spatial dimensions and one of time. I think they call it the Bulk (not to be confused with the Hulk) possibly 10 or eleven dimensions. It makes sense to me but I've found my fondness for M-theory to not be as popular among the rank and file.

[coldcreation]

Perhaps a mod could change the title of this thread to something like:

 

Large Hadron Collider down for 2 months.

 

 

GENEVA' date=' Switzerland (AP) -- The world's largest atom smasher, which was launched with great fanfare earlier this month, is more badly damaged than previously thought and will be out of commission for at least two months, its operators said Saturday.[/quote']

 

 

CC

[Moontanman]

Perhaps a mod could change the title of this thread to something like:

 

Large Hadron Collider down for 2 months.

 

 

 

 

 

CC

 

Damn! I guess we will have to wait two more months to hear from a near by dimension or get FTL communication from aliens or see time travelers appear.... what a bummer. :)

[Little Bang]

Moon, M-theory is as good as any other. Something caused the pulse that became the universe and we can only go there in our mind.